There have been several articles on workplace issues in the last few months posted to Childfree News, one on a similar issue in South Africa, one from a HR site, and one on the latest Hewlett whine-and-flop.

Most notably, California lawmakers are considering a bill that would make parents a protected class for purposes of employment discrimination. This is notable, since such protection is actually rare, and typically reserved for such classifications as race and religion. The general law in the US is that all employment is at-will, and aside from these rare exceptions, employers are free to let people go for any reason. Could this signal the demise of one of the last vestiges of capitalism and free-market economy that America supposedly believes in? Or is it an anomaly of the law signaling just how far pronatalism has come?

The original article has been removed, although one lone comment remains. I cannot find trace of the bill elsewhere; it may well have died in committee. Californians, keep your eyes peeled for news in case a call for action is later required.

Technorati Tag: childfree

Bush's budget proposal would cut the childless from Medicaid bennies.

Hill Democrats Critical Of Bush's Budget Plan

So far, all I have is one line buried in a generally critical article of the entire budget proposal:

Democrats also panned the president's proposals to stop enrolling childless adults in the program . . .

We all know that defending the rights of the childless is not high on the agenda of either party, so this provision is likely to receive little attention. If anyone knows more about this, please let me know. In the meantime, I'll continue to dig for details.

Technorati Tag: childfree

Action Alert: Has PC Pro-Natalism Caused a PR Disaster?

As posted on Childfree News, after a child was so disruptive she had to be removed from a flight, AirTran refunded the family's tickets (yet still flew them home), and offered them three free round-trip tickets.

I was worried that all these perks signaled that the company was apologising for their actions, that they were somehow saying their crew acted incorrectly. Should they have delayed the flight another 15 minutes? Indefinitely? Said "screw the FAA" and taken off with a child screaming in the aisle?

Here's my letter:

I was very dismayed to hear about the recent incident in which an uncontrollable child was removed from a flight. The flight crew in question acted in the best interests of safety and the other passengers, yet your actions in refunding the flight, issuing an apology, and offering free flights undermined that severely. That sends the clear message that the crew acted improperly, and is nearly a reprimand to them.

Certainly, your actions will prevent your flight crews from handling such situations similarly in the future. This means that the safety and comfort of all passengers will be held hostage to extreme political correctness, and to the behavior of a single person. I will certainly avoid your airline in the future, and will seek those who reward, and do not punish, appropriate employee behavior.

They responded:

While we are thankful for your support, we regret that this incident escalated to the point of having to remove the child from the flight, as our objective is to allow our customers to reach their destinations as scheduled. I am not at liberty to discuss the travel record of any passenger, however, please understand that our company's decision to compensate the family was based on several factors. Nevertheless, we are sorry you do not agree with this aspect of our decision. Our company consistently strives to improve our future performance and this matter will certainly be included in those efforts.

Of course. Since the bulk of the response was explaining the incident as if to someone who objected to the crew's actions, I assume that they have received many parental complaints, and few about their apology. (And hence have not drafted a pat answer to complaints like mine) Indeed, when posting this issue, many childfree people have glossed over that aspect in their haste to applaud the crew. While I join them in doing so, I also think there are broader concerns at issue here.

The precedent that is set by their apology, in addition to the media attention, sends a message to flight crews that pro-natalism, not safety is the dominating force. If an adult passenger had been disruptive, had refused to comply with FAA guidelines, and was removed, there would have been no apology, no free tickets.

AirTran's behavior puts us all at risk. The next time a flight attendant has to deal with an unruly child, the temptation will be to allow the child to stay, jeopardizing everyone's safety. They will be compelled to, at least, let the incident go on longer. Although the 15 minute delay of this flight certainly caused a chain reaction of missed (passengers) and delayed (crew) connections at their destination, a longer delay will compound this effect. How long is too long? How many hundreds must miss their flights, how many flights must be delayed for the sake of allowing one unruly child to remain?

If anyone else is afraid that the attitude of pro-natalism is out of control, please write AirTran and let them know they should not have apologized for their crew's appropriate and considerate behavior.

Technorati Tag: childfree